Sarah Palin: GUILTY of Abuse of Power

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Sarah Palin: GUILTY of Abuse of Power
485
Fri, 10-10-2008 - 10:18pm

Sarah did it! The standing Governor of Alaska is found Guilty of Abuse of Power by letting First Dude have so much access to state information, state employees, and making over 19 calls to pressure a state official to fire her BIL out of revenge. It was unlawful, but no charges??

I knew it. She did it as Mayor and got away with it. The McCain camp is making excuses as usual, instead of taking responsibility for her/their actions. Details will be released soon.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 1:45pm
Todd wasn't in her administration...
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 2:32pm

Putting politics totally aside, if you do not see that it was an abuse of power and understand what abuse of power means, then my attempting to talk in a rational manner - not even a debate style on this issue - is fruitless.


Whoever did what where and when, this Alaskan bipartisan committee released this report now, and it stated that

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 2:39pm

I'm sorry but this was NOT the consensus of the committee. It was ONE person's OPINION. The committee did not vote on the findings, only only on whether or not to release the report. The committee members have been vocal saying that some do NOT agree with the conclusions.

And she has released a statement, but it has not been covered in the press as widely as the headline grabbing "conclusion" of the Obama supporter.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 2:48pm

I would hope she has released "a statement."

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-29-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 3:05pm

Todd wasn't in her administration...


Yeah, um, that's

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 3:14pm

They did not release the testimony. That is one of the problems. They claim that the testimony is private, but it is not. It was a public investigation using public money and the public should be allowed to see it.

The committee agreed to release it because there was no reason not to release it. The members who disagreed stated publicly that they did not agree with some of the conclusions. If they had voted not to release it, it would have made them look like they were hiding something. Everything is out in the open now, which is better for all parties involved - the committee members AND Palin.

If you are sincerely interested in looking at this objectively, you may want to see Palin's lawyer's response to this. If you will agree to read it (it's a quick read) I would be happy to discuss this with you further.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/11/response.branchflower.report.pdf

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 3:16pm
Reminds ya a little of Hillary Clinton, huh?
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 3:20pm

Listening to Palin's lawyer is "objectivity?"


 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 3:23pm
Yes. Since you've already listened to the other side. Do you think it's objective to only listen to one side?
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 3:48pm
I still don't understand your comment.
NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Pages